Lords Sitting of 6 August 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Westminster Temporary Bridge; Duke of Cambridge's Annuity.
2a County Court Extension Act Amendment; Fees (Court of Common Pleas) (No. 2); Poor Relief.
Reported.—Cruelty to Animals (Scotland); Borough Gaols; Excise Sugar and Licences; Commons Inclosure (No. 2).
3a Borough Bridges; Public Libraries and Museums; Small Tenements Rating; Administration of Justice in Court of Chancery Acts Continuance.

CARRICK-ON-SHANNON UNION—REPORT FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE.
LORD BEAUMONT LORD BEAUMONT laid upon the table the Report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into a petition of the Board of Guardians of the Union of Carrick-on-Shannon, with Minutes of Evidence, and an Appendix. The noble Lord said, that though the report was the report of the Committee, it contained a good deal which, in his opinion, was not borne out by the evidence—particularly some very severe observations and remarks upon certain officers of the union. A difference of opinion had existed in the Committee on these portions of the report, nor were they in the draft of the report which he as chairman had originally drawn up and submitted to the Committee. Having, however, been added to the draft of the report by the majority, the whole must now be accepted by the House as the report of the Committee. He wished to add, that from what he had seen in this and other Committees, he believed it would be advisable and useful to adopt the practice of the other House, of enabling Committees to report their Minutes of proceedings; and at the commencement of the next Session he should introduce this subject to their Lordships' consideration.
LORD WHARNCLIFFEsupported the Motion, and suggested that in future the Committees of their Lordships' House should be allowed a discretion whether to examine witnesses on oath or otherwise, as they might think proper.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEdeclined to give any opinion on the merits of this report; but he entirely concurred in the suggestion thrown out by his noble Friend (Lord Beaumont). The practice of the House of Commons would be found extremely advisable, in order to facilitate a perfect comprehension of the subject.

839
The Motions and Amendments made were recorded, and they ought to he published; and as he was aware of no objection to such a practice, he should be prepared, unless good reasons were shown to the contrary, to give his support to any proposition for introducing a more systematic mode of representing the inquiries conducted by Select Committees. He felt greater doubt as to the suggestion of his noble Friend on the cross bench, for he had heard and found that greater importance was attached by the country at large to the inquiries of the House of Lords than to those of the other House, owing to their being conducted upon oath. He must, therefore, reserve his opinion upon that subject.
LORD MONTEAGLEthought that great reforms might be introduced into the proceedings before their Committees; but this was the first time in which he had ever heard the report of any Select Committee disavowed by its own chairman. As his noble Friend (Lord Beaumont) had taken upon himself to condemn the Committee, he (Lord Monteagle) should inform the House upon what grounds he believed this course had been taken. The Committee was appointed in opposition to the wishes of the Government. They sat laboriously on that Committee; for some days at the commencement the Members of Her Majesty's Government attended the Committee, but afterwards desisted. At the close of the labours of the Committee, the Committee had again the benefit of their attendance, and was rejoiced but surprised to find that it commanded the presence of three Members of the Cabinet. The report, which Lord Beaumont now disavowed was carried on a division by a majority of two to one, and the three Members of the Cabinet, along with Lord Beaumont, were in the minority. He should not have said one word about the non-attendance of Ministers at one time, and their attendance at another, had it not been necessary to sustain the conclusions of the Committee against the observations of Lord Beaumont.
The EARL of MINTO, as one of the Members of that Committee alluded to by the noble Lord, begged to state that he had attended during a great portion of the time that Committee was sitting, and that he had taken a part in all the proceedings, and had heard all the evidence relating to those matters on which he dissented from
840
the majority of the Committee. He entirely concurred in the remarks of his noble Friend the Chairman of the Committee, and he hoped their Lordships would attend rather to the evidence than to the report.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that it was no wonder that his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) should not be quite correct in his description of the occurrences before this Committee, when he was incorrect in his recollection of what he (Lord Beaumont) had said only three minutes ago. He had laid this report on the table as the report of the Committee, and had not disavowed it as the act of that body. His noble Friend was also quite wrong in accusing him of having thrown a slur upon the report, merely because three Members of the Cabinet had voted against it. He had stated distinctly that though he had differed from some portions, he agreed with other portions of the report. His noble Friend was also wrong in stating that there had only been one division on the report. A division took place at a very early period of the inquiry, as to whether one part of the question ought to be gone into. He thought that it ought not; but his objection was overruled. He then thought that it was their duty to get the best evidence possible on the point. He did all that he could to obtain that evidence, and to preserve the strictest impartiality. A report was afterwards submitted to the Committee, which contained his opinion, founded on the evidence taken before it, but which avoided giving any opinion on those charges against the officers of the union, which were certainly brought, but not proved, by several witnesses. He was ashamed to say that contradiction on contradiction took place among the witnesses examined. False swearing must have been practised to a great extent on one side or the other. There were often the most gross contradictions in the evidence of the same witness. He had, therefore, wholly discarded all such evidence, and formed his opinion on that evidence alone which appeared to him to be unimpeachable. The daring spirit of his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) went far beyond his (Lord Beaumont's), and at last his noble Friend carried so many Amendments, that he thought the tone and general purport of the report so much changed, that he (Lord Beaumont) declined going the lengths his noble Friend had gone, and

841
protected against the additions to the original draft of the report.
Report to be printed.

THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD BROUGHAM: My Lords, I have already stated to your Lordships, that having heard that a violent attack—and slanderous as it is violent—has been made on the judicial proceedings of this House, I felt that it would be my duty to bring that attack under your notice. I should not have mentioned the subject to your Lordships before I read the articles in question, had I not had implicit confidence in the accuracy of the three noble friends who had read them and given me a description of their contents. I have since read the publication to which they referred me, and I now find that the description of it given to me falls considerably short of the truth, and that a more unjustifiable, and I will even add, a more indecent attack on any court of justice, I have never seen in the whole course of my experience. I beg, my Lords, to preface what I am now going to urge with the proposition that it is one thing to comment even with levity, violence, and scurrility on the proceedings of this House in its political, ministerial, or legislative capacity, and that it is another thing so to comment on its proceedings when it sits in its capacity as a high court of justice. My Lords, whatever brings the administration of justice into contempt with the people, is an injury to the Government, and a serious evil to the administration of justice itself. And surely, my Lords, it cannot be said that the evil is diminished by the consideration that the court assailed and to be brought into public contempt is the House of Lords, the high court of appeal from all the other tribunals of the country. Such an assault upon the administration of justice in the Court of Queen's Bench, in the Court of Common Pleas, in the Court of Exchequer, or in the Court of Chancery, would be considered a high contempt, and would subject those who perpetrated such an offence to severe and condign punishment. That Court which sits in judgment over the Court of Queen's Bench, the Court of Common Pleas, the Court of Exchequer, and the Court of Chancery, ought to receive the same protection which those courts have by their own intrinsic power: they have undoubtedly the power, which they occasionally exercise, of committing to prison and
842
of finding all who are wilfully guilty of contempt. Having said thus much, my Lords, I now proceed to mention that I have been sitting for the last six or seven weeks in the administration of justice in your appellate jurisdiction, assisted occasionally by other Peers, not law Lords; but of law Lords, I was the only one who has been able to attend. I undertook—I voluntarily undertook—this duty. The ignorance of the party who put this in the newspaper—in some respects the mere ignorance, but in others the ignorance combined with falsehood and malignity—is inconceivable. That person says, that this has only taken place since my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack accepted the Great Seal. Why, it took place long before. I was sitting as the only law Lord during the whole time that the Great Seal was in commission; but on hearing that there were heavy arrears of causes in his own court, when my noble and learned Friend accepted the Great Seal, and that none of the appeals entered last Session had been disposed of this Session by this House, I felt it to be my bounden duty to aid your Lordships in your judicial capacity in getting rid of the arrears before you, and also to relieve the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack. I sat, my Lords, as a law Lord in your judicial business. I have heard causes of as difficult and of as heavy a description as ever came before you. I heard two cases, each of which lasted four days, during sittings continued from ten o'clock in the morning till five in the afternoon—I say till five in the afternoon, at which hour your Lordships meet in your political capacity. For it is a very important thing to the parties, if you rise in appeals at four o'clock. What is the consequence of your Lordships adjourning at four o'clock till ten the next morning, when by sitting for half an hour or an hour longer you can finish the case at that hearing? Why, if you adjourn till the next day, all the counsel in the case, it may be four, five, six, or seven in number, have to he refreshed over again, all the fees of the House are to be paid over again, and all the expense of the solicitors' bills is to be incurred, amounting, it maybe, to 200 l. or 300 l. I save all this, my Lords, by sitting half an hour or three-quarters of an hour longer every day. Now, to all the causes which I have heard I have given the most laborious and deliberate attention; and my sincere belief is that the learned counsel in those cases will admit that I also gave

843
them a most patient and impartial attention. Contrary to the course taken by other Judges in this House, I never once stopped a cause on the mere showing of the appellant, although I may have occasionally felt that the decree of the court below was right, and that there was no change whatever for the appellant; for I have always held, that in a court of last resort, where the most serious injury might be done—an injury only to be set right in the case of a slip or miscarriage by an Act of Parliament—it is better to hear both sides out, and to allow the appellant to have his reply. I have sat as many as five or six days in the week, having sat on Wednesdays and Saturdays for three weeks, contrary to the uniform practice of the House; but my great object was to cut down the arrears, so as to get rid of them before we parted for the holydays. My Lords, I have succeeded in that object. I heard last Saturday the last of the causes in arrear—all, save one, which by some accident dropped from the paper—but even that cause, which turns on the interpretation of a will, stands for hearing to-morrow. I have thus succeeded in disposing of the causes in arrear, and arrears at present there are positively none. I have left no hearing, and, what is more, I have left no decision in arrear. I have moved your Lordships to give judgment in every cause which I have heard. This I consider to be of great importance. I hope that my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack will forgive me if, with my experience in this court, which is much longer than any which he can have had at present, although I hope that his experience will yet extend far beyond mine—I hope, I say, that my noble and learned Friend will forgive me if I urge on him that the very worst thing that a Judge can do is to fall into the perilous habit of postponing judgment for too long an interval between the time of hearing and that of decision. Hearing arguments day after day when you do not intend to give your judgment till six months afterwards, not only gives you the habit of not applying your mind closely to the arguments; but the practice has also this other bad effect, that when you prepare your judgment in the long vacation, and pronounce it some time before Christmas, you are then exceedingly apt to forget circumstances of material importance in the case, the effect of the argument is effaced from your mind, and the parties find, that though they have in-
844
curred the expense and trouble of having had the points in dispute argued by counsel, you (the Judge) would have been just as competent to decide them if you had read all the papers, seen all the notes, and heard no counsel whatever. I therefore recommend to my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, after hearing counsel, to let as little time as possible elapse before he gives his judgment. I have given judgment, my Lords, in all the cases save one which I have heard during the present Session. I will add one word more. Four of the cases I have heard have been in reversal, all the others in affirmance of the decrees of the courts below. But in every case, whether in reversal or whether in affirmance, with one exception where the putting off the judgment would have been the affectation of seeing difficulty and doubt where difficulty and doubt there were none, I have postponed my judgment for two or three days, and sometimes for a week, in order to afford ample time thoroughly to consider the arguments in conjunction with my own notes of the case, and to consult statutes, authorities, and text-books; and I will venture to say that even in cases where I have been under the necessity of reversing the decision of the court below, the united opinion of the profession, not excluding those members of the bar against whose arguments I decided, is in favour of the judgments which I have delivered. It does not become me in my judicial capacity to say what opinion the bar have of the satisfactory or unsatisfactory conduct of the judicial business of this House during these six or seven weeks; but I am confident that the decisions which I then gave will be found to produce satisfaction. I am now, my Lords, about to show you what the attack is of which I complain. I will not read to you the ribaldry of the article at length, nor notice the general attacks on my character, which I assure you that I despise. First of all, it is said that such a thing has never been heard of as a single law Lord, who is not a Judge, sitting by himself to hear appeals, whilst the Chancellor was at Lincoln's Inn; never, until the appointment of my noble and learned Friend to the high office of Lord Chancellor. Never heard of? Why, it has been heard of not only this Session, whilst the Lords Commissioners were sitting at Westminster, but it was heard of so long back as the Session of 1835, when I sat and heard my noble and learned Friend, now on the woolsack, then at the

845
bar, arguing one case for seventeen hours. I admit that I did not on that occasion sit at the centre of the table during the whole time, because an Irish demagogue, who chose to fix a quarrel on me for my official and Ministerial conduct, threatened the Government of the day with his high displeasure in case it allowed me to appear to decide the cases in the House of Lords. So my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Shaftesbury), at the instigation of the Government, acted on, to its own disgrace, by the Irish demagogue, was compelled to come down, and to sit at the table, and to appear to decide the cases which came before us. I was meanwhile sitting in my place as a Peer, with my desk before me, and the only result of that compulsory movement was that the counsel were compelled to turn, with their necks awry, to address me, who was sitting on this side of the House—and I hope that my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack is not stiil suffering from the twist in the neck which he got upon that occasion. I nevertheless still continued to decide causes, although my noble Friend, Lord Shaftesbury, came down to preside at the table, until the end of that long, very long, Session. It is then said that only Judges should sit here, and that till the time of the present Lord Chancellor that was always the practice. Not so, my Lords; for during the last time my noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) held the Great Seal, my noble and learned Friends, Lord Cottenham and Lord Campbell, and myself, had sate, in turn, three times every week, and had decided long causes, sometimes in conjunction and sometimes separately. This, my Lords, is the absolute and gross ignorance which presides over this newspaper attack. But this is not the worst part of its offence. I stated to your Lordships the patience with which I listened to every case which came before me; and I challenge all who were present, be they peers, suitors, advocates, or solicitors, to deny the patience with which I went through every case, and the deliberation with which all our proceedings were regulated. There is this passage—"The number of cases knocked off in the Lords"—as if some one had bragged of the precipitate haste with which cases had been decided—I need scarcely tell your Lordships that I never used so vulgar and low-bred an expression:—
"The number of cases 'knocked off' in the Lords has been considerable; but whether they have been gravely and attentively heard, maturely
846
considered, and satisfactorily disposed of, is a question which will not be agreeably answered on inquiry amongst the able men who, for six weeks past, have been pleading at the bar of the House of Lords."
And then comes more stupid ribaldry as to the haste with which causes had been knocked off, and as to my motives in sitting as Judge in the House of Lords. There is only one other part of this trash with which I will trouble your Lordships, and it is this:—
"His (the Lord Chancellor's) bar warned the Lord Chancellor that the arrangement he had made for Lord Brougham transacting the appellate business of the Lords for the remainder of the Session would not work well, and it has not."
Here, my Lords, is a fact stated on which I gladly join issue with this slanderer. "The bar remonstrated against my sitting here as Judge." Whether my transacting the appellate business of the House of Lords worked well, or not, is not for me to decide; I will leave that to the profession and the public; but I assert that this is not only not true, but that there is not a shadow of truth for the assertion that the bar remonstrated against my acting as a Judge. I say that no remonstrance was made against me—I say that no objection was offered to me by the bar, and I further add that a noble and learned Friend of mine asked the Lord Chancellor to come down to the House, as he was acquainted with the facts of a particular case which was to come before us, but that he thought it was not a reasonable request—but that has nothing to do with the case now before us. In short, this paragraph is, from beginning to end, a gross departure from truth. I say that no Court can suffer such false libellous slanders on its proceedings to pass unnoticed, and, for this reason—a Court which permits such slanders is supposed to admit their truth. If I could not have laid my finger on this article, if I could not have brought it in this manner to the world that my sitting to assist your Lordships in your judicial capacity this Session had been met by a remonstrance from the bar, no remonstrance, even from the bar, would prevent me at any time from performing that which I felt to be my duty to this House and to the country; but, my Lords, I should regret indeed if now, for the first time, and after a long professional career, and after twenty years of judicial experience, I had afforded grounds for any such remonstrance betokening on the part of the bar, a want

847
of confidence in my learning and my honour.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I regret exceedingly the attack which has been made on my noble and learned Friend; for, beyond a doubt, he has rendered great and good service to the country this Session by disposing of the appeals. When I bad the honour of receiving the Great Seal, there was a great arrear of cases in this House, and also in the Court of Chancery, arising not only from the unfortunate illness of my noble and learned Friend, Lord Cottenham, but added to in a very great degree by the unfortunate illness which happened at the same time to that extremely valuable Judge the Vice-Chancellor of England, and the illness of Vice-Chancellor Wigram. The illness of those two learned personages contributed largely to that arrear, because the causes proposed to be heard, and those which had been partially heard before them, could not be heard by any other Judge in Chancery save the Lord Chancellor. Therefore, having to hear and decide not only the causes which came before the Court of Chancery in its ordinary practice, and of which there was a considerable arrear; but the causes which bad been so partly heard by those two learned Judges, of necessity the arrears continued and increased; and, with my attention divided—sometimes having to preside in your Lordships' House, and sometimes in the Court of Chancery, no effort of mine could keep them down; and I hope I need not assure your Lordships that I should have been most willing to use every effort to serve the public by decreasing this arrear, or to concur in any arrangement by which that object might have been effected, and the accumulation of further arrears prevented. But though I sought no assistance, my noble and learned Friend, in his zeal for the public service, was good enough to undertake to hear and decide upon the appeals in this House, and so leave me more at liberty to deal with the business of the Court of Chancery. With regard to the feeling of the bar, I have had but little communication with them; but from what I know, I believe there is not the slightest foundation for saying that any remonstrance had ever been made by the bar against that arrangement. If there had, and I had been informed of it, I should immediately have communicated with my noble and learned Friend, and have asked your Lordships to consider what course it became you to pursue, in order to dispose
848
of the arrears under such circumstances. I believe generally that the profession is desirous that the person who holds the Great Seal should preside over the judicial business in this House. But be that as it may, in reference to the arrangement in question, I have bad communication with but one member of the bar since I heard of this attack upon my noble and learned Friend—that person is one who attends very much in your Lordships' House, and is engaged in most of the appeals that come before you—and from that learned person I learned that the manner in which my noble and learned Friend has discharged the duty he had undertaken, and the judgments he has pronounced, had given great satisfaction to him, and he believed to every one of his learned brethren of the profession, as well as to your Lordships and the public. I believe that the attacks to which my noble and learned Friend has called your attention, originated in some private and malicious motives. Undoubtedly they were not directed to the advantage of the public, and not dictated by the conviction that they were true. It is quite true, as my noble and learned Friend has said, that the most patient attention and deliberation have been given by my noble and learned Friend to every case which has come before him, and that be has been mainly instrumental in bringing to a conclusion and giving judgment on the part of your Lordships in several causes of vast importance; and I have now learned with no less astonishment than gratification, that he has been able to pronounce judgment in all cases before your Lordships. I regret the attacks which have been made upon my noble and learned Friend; but I can hardly think that so far as my noble and learned Friend was individually concerned, they are at all worthy of his notice. And with regard to the House of Lords in its judicial capacity, this House, my Lords, stands far too high for it to be supposed for a moment that by such means the confidence of the public in it can be in the least degree diminished. My noble and learned Friend has presided in your Lordships House, and in Courts of Law and Equity, too long for attacks of this nature to be of the slightest importance to him personally; but that circumstance by no means lessens their indecency and impropriety; and if they are repeated, it may perhaps be incumbent on your Lordships to take notice of them, because in that case, if they are allowed to pass unnoticed, they may obtain credence; but

849
isolated attacks, such as that to which the noble and learned Lord has called attention, pass off innocuously, and are not worth notice. My noble and learned Friend has done good service in the duty he has undertaken, and so successfully performed, and I think he is entitled to the gratitude of the public and of your Lordships for having placed the House of Lords in the position that no arrears of causes will remain undecided at the close of the Session. I can only say further, that I hope next Session I shall be able to discharge the duty as satisfactorily as my noble and learned Friend has done.
The DUKE of WELLINGTON: My Lords, having been a Member of various Administrations for many years now past, and having been often sensible of the great inconvenience resulting from the accumulation of arrears in the bearing and decision of judicial appeals before this House, I cannot but be sensible of the great obligations which the House is under to my noble and learned Friend, for the great activity which he has displayed, and for the great pains which he has taken in presiding over, in hearing, and in deciding on the existing appeals, and in keeping that branch of our judicial business in such a state as will enable us to bring it to a conclusion at the end of the present Session. My Lords, I concur in the feeling of disapprobation of these foul libels on the administration of justice in this House, which has been so well expressed by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack; for observe, my Lords, these foul libels are attacks on the administration of justice in this House, and not on the administration of justice by my noble and learned Friend. I implore him not to discontinue his exertions in the public cause from any feeling of resentment at such attacks. This House is fully sensible of the great services which he has already rendered it, and feels the utmost confidence in the advice which he offers to it for the formation of its decisions—for I beg to remind you that all my noble and learned Friend does is to give you his advice; it is for you to decide upon it. I am much mistaken if there be not many noble Lords in this House fully capable of discerning whether that advice is right or wrong. I hope that my noble and learned Friend will not be deterred by attacks like these from continuing his attendance at our judicial proceedings.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEen-
850
tirely concurred in the sense of obligation which the House owed to all the noble and learned Lords, and especially to his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), for the time, talents, and exertions which they devoted to the sustainment of the impartiality, dignity, and character of the judgments of the House. Unacquainted as he was with the article which had caused his noble and learned Friend such pain, and with the merits of the various causes which he had decided this Session, he felt still a deep conviction that the judgments pronounced before the Members of that House, who, as the noble Duke had well observed, were competent enough to discover any errors in their proceedings, must, until those errors were pointed out, he assumed to be correct, and must command the attention and respect of the public. He was sure that the conduct of his noble and learned Friend enjoyed the full confidence of the public, for whoso benefit, as well as that of the House, the noble and learned Lord had devoted so much time and attention.

SMALL TENEMENTS RATING BILL.
On Motion that this Bill he now read 3a,
The EARL of HARDWICKE The EARL of HARDWICKE moved, that it be read a third time that day six months. He believed that the Bill was characterised by great hardship and partiality, and that it would lead to a positive confiscation of a large amount of property. Not only would the landlords of this property lose their rents, but they would have to pay the rates also. A similar Bill had been passed for Liverpool in 1831, the effect of which was to increase the rates in the course of three years from 1s. 9d. to 2s. 6d. in the pound. At the expiration of that period the Bill was repealed, and the rates fell to 1s. 6d. Their Lordships should profit by this experience, and reject the present measure.
LORD PORTMAN, as chairman of the Committee that had sat upon the subject of parochial assessments, thought it right to state that the unanimous opinion of that Committee was that some such Bill as the present ought to pass, inasmuch as the greater part of the occupiers under the present circumstances escaped the payment of rates, and the landlords pocketted the difference.
Amendment withdrawn; Original Motion agreed to.
Bill read 3a, and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for consideration of the Commons' Amendments, and Reasons, read.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, in conformity with the notice which he had given, he rose to call their Lordships' attention to the Amendments which had been made in the other House of Parliament in this Bill, which had undergone a very full discussion in this House, the result of which was, that their Lordships had made very material alterations in this Bill. Some of these alterations had been struck out, others had been retained; and with these changes it had been sent up from the other House. He wished generally to call their attention to the different Amendments which had been made in the measure, leaving it to their Lordships to take any one of them in detail, and to found upon it any Motion that might seem desirable. He would shortly state the character of the Amendments which the other House had agreed to, as adopted by their Lordships, and then to those which that House had thought fit to make, but which the other House had not adopted, but had on their side amended, and again submitted for their Lordships' consideration. It was his intention to submit a Motion to the House to agree to these Amendments of the Commons. The Amendments which the other House had agreed to were but few, but they were of some importance. They had agreed to the Amendment suggested by their Lordships, the adoption of which would be attended with the very useful effect of excluding any fraudulent occupiers from the possession of the franchise; and they agreed with that House to regard actual occupancy, either as tenant or owner, as an essential qualification. They had also agreed with another important Amendment which had been adopted by that House unanimously, and which certainly met with his own entire concurrence—to omit the clause by which joint occupiers were to have the right of voting. They had also agreed with the Amendment which inserted certain words in a clause by which a net value was required to qualify a person for voting, so as to prevent the custom of faggot voting, and securing that the person voting should be bonâ fide in possession of the amount of property which was legitimately required. They had also agreed to the Amendment with regard to
852
the alteration of the dates in the Bill. The House of Commons, however, on the consideration of the whole of the subject, dissented from the conclusions their Lordships had come to on two important points. The first was as to the proposed qualification of voters; and the other was, the self-acting principle of registration. The House of Commons, in sending up the Bill, had adopted a certain rate of voting, with which their Lordships did not agree, but required a greatly increased amount of rating of an occupancy. The House of Commons had sent up a Bill with the sum of 8l. rating for a qualification; but, after a great deal of discussion in that House, and after various suggestions had been made, their Lordships were pleased to alter this enactment, and make provision that the occupancy should be rated to the enormous amount of 15 l. The Commons had now sent up the measure again amended; and he now entreated that House to reconsider this subject, with the view of coming to an agreement. The sum of 8l. was in the Bill as it was originally sent up, and 15 l. was substituted by their Lordships. The House of Commons, anxious to maintain, if possible, a good understanding and agreement between that House and themselves, said that while they could not acquiesce in that large increase in the value to confer the right of voting, they had abstained from sending the Bill back with the amount which they had originally decided upon, and had altered their original proposal, by substituting 12 l. for 8l. This change was agreed to by a large majority of the other House, and the adoption of it would have the effect of giving no more than 10 voters for every 100 male adults in the population of Ireland; while in England, Wales, and Scotland, the right of voting, taken on the average, was possessed by 28 out of every 100 male adults; and in Scotland, where the proportion of voters was the lowest, the proportion was 25 to the 100. He could hardly believe that noble Lords were prepared to pass such a sentence on Ireland, as to say that 10 in the 100 of the adult male population of the country was too large a proportion of the population of that country to be entrusted with the elective franchise. If they looked at the recent election for Mayo, they would find a striking instance of the evils of the present system. Such a state of things loudly called for a proportionate increase in the number of voters. He knew that he had

853
been accused of showing too great a willingness to adopt their Lordships' sentiments upon this subject, in not having pressed them to a decision upon the proposition of the House of Commons for an 8l. franchise; and he knew that he might also be accused that night of showing too great pertinacity in asking and urging their Lordships not to adopt so high a rate of qualification as 15 l. He was indifferent to both those accusations; but he wished to see a Bill pass which should put an end to this subject, which should not leave a cause for ferment in that country; and which should not exclude any class of persons from the right of voting who were qualified by situation and numbers to exercise that privilege. He was far from asking their Lordships to forego that right, which they unquestionably and constitutionally possessed, of modifying and altering the vote of the other House of Parliament. He was not one of those who would, under any circumstances, wish to see their Lordships reduced to act the part of a mere puppet in the constitution of the country, whose duty it was merely to register in due form the decisions of any other body; but while he thought they had an unquestionable right to exercise their own opinion upon these subjects, and to canvass them in the spirit of free inquiry, he did earnestly conjure their Lordships that that privilege which they respected in themselves, and for themselves, they would liberally concede to others; and if they were satisfied, as he thought they must be, that it was by representative government alone that any part of this united kingdom could remain happy and contented, he did trust that, in regulating the amount of the franchise in Ireland, they would not so contrive it as to leave out of it, and alongside of it, excluded from the margin which they prescribed, any body of occupiers so large and so situated, by nullifying the effects of that franchise by making it not effectually and not really a representation of the opinions of the people of that country. Even if those opinions should not, in their Lordships' apprehension, be always exercised in accordance with the rule of right, yet they should recollect that they were never more sacred than when they were exercised in a constitutional manner, and when the people were not driven to express them in modes which were unconstitutional, and in a course which was attended with danger and mischief to the public safety. He thought he was not asking their Lordships
854
to grant too great a boon in calling upon them to give to Ireland an increased franchise. He asked them to grant it, if not to the same extent as in England and Scotland, at least in a greatly increased proportion to the present constituency. He therefore earnestly recommended the House to agree to this Amendment of the Commons. There was another Amendment which was also the subject of much discussion in that House, fie meant the Amendment by which that House set aside the self-acting principle of registration, and had substituted for it a system of individual claim and application, which could not he made without subjecting the voter to all that interference and dictation which had to an extraordinary degree marked and distinguished the progress of elections in Ireland. The House must be well aware of the authority exercised over the voters in Ireland. There was the authority of the landlord—there was the authority of the priests—and there was the authority of persons who were known by the name of agitators. All these influences, he believed, would be materially diminished if the Bill passed with the alteration made by their Lordships. If, however, persons were called upon to claim the right of voting before they possessed it, it would be found that there were no persons who would exercise the franchise unless under the control of the landlords and the priests. They might depend upon it the adoption of the course proposed by the Commons was that best calculated to give an honest, independent, and intelligent constituency. He trusted their Lordships would reconsider this part of the subject, and adopt the clause as it originally stood, by which the guardians of the poor, and the clerks of the peace, were bound to place duly qualified voters on the register. The other Amendments of the Commons wore not of a character to call for observation from him. The noble Marquess concluded with moving that the Commons' Amendments to the Lords' Amendments be agreed to.
LORD STANLEYhad no intention of reopening at any length the discussion which had already taken place upon the two important Amendments last alluded to by the noble Marquess. He confessed, however, that he had heard with some surprise the statement of the noble Marquess, that the House of Commons had acceded to several material Amendments which had been made by their Lordships in this Bill; and, certainly, when the noble Marquess

855
enumerated them, it did not appear that they were of a very material or important character, when he was obliged to enlist in his enumeration the Amendment with regard to the alterations of the dates, which was rendered absolutely necessary, unless they had intended to make the Bill complete nonsense, because, the Bill reaching that House in July, it was made to come into operation by the House of Commons on the 1st of June; therefore the House of Commons would not have been very consistent if they had opposed the alteration. Then again they were told that they had adopted another Amendment, the obvious intention of which was to make a bonâ fide occupation necessary for the franchise. There was another Amendment of great importance, which had been introduced by the noble Marquess, namely, the getting rid of the joint occupancy qualification; but as this had been carried at the instigation of Her Majesty's Government, no credit should be taken for its adoption elsewhere.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: No, you proposed it.
LORD STANLEYhad certainly given notice to that effect, but he had been asked by the noble Marquess across the table why he (Lord Stanley) had put it down on the list of Amendments which he had given notice of proposing, as the noble Marquess intended to move it himself; whereupon he (Lord Stanley) replied that as other Amendments were consequent upon its adoption he had inserted it in his list. One of the Amendments was necessary, as it had direct reference to the joint occupiers. The Committee, therefore, inserted words to give effect to it. But to the two points which were of real importance in the Bill, the Commons had altogether disagreed. The House of Commons had disagreed to the Amendments with reference to the amount of the franchise, and with respect to the clause which related to what had been called the self-acting system of registration which their Lordships had struck out. Their Lordships had had very long discussions on both those subjects, and notwithstanding the resistance of Her Majesty's Ministers, their Lordships had expressed very strong opinions in favour of the Amendments which had been proposed, and had carried them by considerable majorities. On that occasion a noble Friend of his on the cross-bench had expressed a hope that they did not demand either a 12 l. or a 15 l. franchise, with a wish to make it a ground of compensation
856
or bargain with the House of Commons, hut that they would, to the best of their judgment, agree to the lowest amount of qualification which they could adopt with safety for the working of the Bill, and for the sake of the representative system of both Great Britain and Ireland. So far from thinking the Amendment which be had proposed gave too high a qualification, he was directly of the contrary opinion. So far from thinking that their Lordships, by assenting to a 15 l. qualification had gone too far, he was of opinion that it was a dangerously low one. It was not the qualification of the person who was rated and paid on a 15 l. holding, but the occupier, however abject his condition, however ignorant, not possessed of any property, who was in possession of a tenement assessed at 15 l. a year. This qualification would probably include persons who were in possessed of three or four acres of land, on which they lived, and in the town populations much less. The mere occupancy of a house as a tenant at will, as their Lordships' Amendment stood, would confer on this class of persons the right of voting. The noble Marquess said, and he fully concurred with him, that the representative system should be a bonâ fide representative system, and it was upon that the country rested its welfare and character, and upon which the safety of the constitution depended. But he was anxious that these representatives should be not merely representatives of numbers of interests, but of the intelligence, and property of the country. He believed that they would make the constituencies of Ireland more the exponents of the opinions and interests of that country if they regarded them, not with respect to mere numbers, but to other qualifications; but he feared the Government were making the constituency of Ireland merely representative of numbers, without reference to property, or at all events they were so framing their constituency, that numbers would overbalance that portion which possessed property. This was not a question of principle, but of degree. It had happened, in consequence of the emigration or removal of many, and of the dispensations of Providence, that the constituency of Ireland had become very low. They had been told by the noble Marquess to look at the recent election for the county of Mayo, and to the very small number of voters who had polled there. He (Lord Stanley) would ask the House to refer to what had taken place at that recent election as a specimen of what they might

857
expect if they adopted any such plan as that which now stood in the Bill, It was stated that the number of electors was very small, not exceeding 300—and not more than 230 polled at the last election. He must, however, say that the number which were actually prevented voting—which would be made the subject of inquiry elsewhere—was very considerable, for the most extraordinary steps had been taken to prevent these persons exercising their rights. The election for Mayo was attended with as disgraceful proceedings as had ever taken place, and ought to be a warning to the noble Marquess and his Colleagues. No question of foreign or home policy—no question of protection or free trade—no question involving a difference on English or Irish interests, was involved in it; but the landlords, the owners of the soil in the county, both Whig and Tory, were almost unanimous in favour of one of the candidates; but the election was carried against the landlords by the most unscrupulous, unwarrantable, and unconstitutional intimidation of a portion of the Catholic priests, that ever disgraced a country calling itself civilised. The mode of carrying on the election was a slander and scandal on the representative system. The Gentleman who was returned did not represent the owners and occupiers of that county, but was the representative of Bishop M'Hale and his subordinate clergy. When they saw in the county of Mayo the immense power of the Catholic priests, and the unscrupulous manner in which they exercised that power, their Lordships must be doubly cautious in introducing a new experiment for the franchise, never to adopt such a scheme as was calculated to make the electors the mere tools of the Catholic clergy. This, he repeated, was a question not of principle, but of degree. He, and those who acted with him, admitted that it was desirable to extend the franchise—to extend it as far as could be safely done, namely, with a proper combination of numbers with intelligence and property. The limitation must necessarily be arbitrary. The limitation which he proposed might he acted upon for a period, and if, in due course of experience, they found this 15 l. franchise worked well, then would be the time to consider whether they could not safely and advantageously go down to 12 l.; but if they fixed it at 12 l. now, the House should remember that, however ruinous the constitution of the franchise to be
858
established—however dangerous and anarchical the character of the constituency to be created under it might prove, they could not follow the example set them in a neighbouring county, namely, having granted the franchise, they could not withdraw it, but must continue it. This was a point which should be carefully and deliberately considered by the House. Noble Lords should recollect, if they followed a step for concession it was irretrievable, and therefore there must be great danger in taking that step. The Bill as it stood proposed to grant a franchise infinitely lower than any which now existed in England, Scotland, or even Ireland itself. He did not think the noble Marquess was very correct in his calculation of the proportion of electors in England and Scotland to the adult population. This measure would not give so large a proportion to England and Wales as it gave to Ireland; for a much lower qualification was required to qualify for a vote than in Great Britain. Then, in Mayo, how could they give anything like a probable guess at the number of persons qualified, when compared, as the noble Marquess did, with the electors of England or Scotland? He had that morning referred to a return which bad recently been laid before Parliament, which stated that there were in Mayo 52,000 tenements, each of which, on an average, was occupied by seven or eight inhabitants; and of these tenements 40.000 were estimated as being rated under 5l. The fact was, that the population of Mayo were a population of paupers; and because the persons possessed of property there were small in proportion to the population, the Government argued that, in the creation of a constituency, their Lordships ought to look to numbers only, and not to property at all, and that the representative of Mayo, who was to form an integral part of the representation of the three kingdoms, should be the representative of a population of paupers. For his part, however, be would not, and he could not, accede to a proposition which placed the franchise in Ireland in the hands of a pauper constituency. He believed that it was not safe to go lower than a 15 l. franchise; and, notwithstanding there had been a considerable majority of the House of Commons in favour of a 12 l. franchise, as he had no doubt there would have been in favour of a still lower franchise, if Her Majesty's Government had proposed it, he trusted that if their Lordships were to exercise an

859
independent judgment at all—if they were to entertain any respect for their own decisions—they would maintain their own opinion, and support the amount of 15 l. as the lowest that could safely be adopted. The noble Marquess had said that the House of Commons had made a great concession to their Lordships in allowing 12 l. to be substituted for 8l. as the amount at which a person should he rated to give him the franchise. The House of Commons had certainly adopted the advice given to them by Her Majesty's Government; and it must be borne in mind that the noble Marquess, when the Bill was in their Lordships' House, finding that the general feeling was, that an 8l. franchise was much too low, declared his intention to vote against it. When it was about to be proposed that the franchise should be 8l., the noble Marquess interposed and desired that the question should not be put, using the extraordinary expression, that if the question was as to the insertion of 8l., he should vote against an 8l. franchise. He (Lord Stanley) was convinced, therefore, that the noble Marquess, so far from making any concession to the majority against him, was satisfied in his own mind that an 8l. franchise was not safe, and that, in his own deliberate judgment, he preferred a 12 l. franchise. The question was not between 8l. and 15 l., but between 12 l. and 15 l.; and the decision of their Lordships was, as he hoped it would be again, that a 15 l. franchise was as low as was safe. Perhaps it would be convenient if he were now to say a few words on the other Amendment relating to the subject of compulsory registration. To that system there were two grave objections, and he had not heard either objection answered. In the first place, it was argued that a great number of persons, who wished to avoid altogether the turmoil of an election, and to cultivate their own land in peace and quiet, would be exposed to the solicitations of the landlord on the one hand, and of the priest on the other, from which there was only one mode of escape; and that was, by the occupier not paying his rates. Now, as an Irish landlord, he must be forgiven for saying that there was already a peculiar reluctance on the part of the occupier to the payment of his rates, and that no additional inducement was necessary. Then, again, a system of compulsory registration acted on one side only. It put the occupiers on the register, but left the freeholders,
860
whom, without reference to political party, he might call the conservative interest of Ireland, to make a claim before they could be placed upon it. This, too was proposed at a time when so much apathy prevailed, and when the duty, as it was called, of registering, was so much neglected. He knew that there was some difference of opinion between himself and some noble Lords who were extremely well acquainted with the state of Ireland, as to what would be the practical operation of this part of the measure. Not thinking, however, that the House of Commons had shown any temper or disposition to concede, he could not waive his strong opinion that the system was an objectionable one, for the sake of making a concession to the House of Commons. If the other House of Parliament had fairly and frankly taken the franchise which their Lordships had deemed the lowest which could safely be proposed, he thought it questionable whether it would not have been desirable for their Lordships, acting in a spirit of mutual concession and goodwill, to try, in deference to the opinion of the House of Commons, this new experiment of a system of compulsory registration. If their Lordships, by adhering to their own views, should cause the loss of the Bill for the present Session, much as he desired to see the question settled—much as he desired to see an end put to the repeated discussion and agitation of the measure—though in Ireland, he believed, it caused but little agitation—["Hear, hear!"]—he would rather encounter the inconvenience which attended the renewal of such discussions, and the recurrence of such agitation, than give his assent to a measure which was destructive of the representative system in Ireland. He moved, therefore, that their Lordships do insist on the Amendment made by this House in page 2, line 5.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEthought it was only by enlarging the constituency that a representation of the sense and intelligence of the country could be secured; for the destruction of the 40 s. freeholders threw the 10 l. householders into the hands of the agitators. The substitution of a 15 l. franchise would exclude 48,000 persons from the constituency of Ireland; and as the property thus unrepresented would chiefly belong to the rural gentry, the consequence of adopting 15 l. as the qualification would he to throw the representation of the counties into the

861
hands of the shopkeepers in the country towns. The proper system was one which was based on the representation of the mass of the people, The noble Lord who had just spoken referred to the Mayo election in terms which were quite unwarranted. The noble Lord observed that no public principle was involved in the contest. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) was not there to contradict the noble Lord; but he had seen letters stating in strong terms that votes would be given to the Gentleman returned on grounds involving the question of protection or free trade. He believed that public principles were a great deal canvassed at that election. He protested against the course taken by the noble Lord, in drawing from what might have occurred in a particular case a general conclusion on which to found legislation with reference to the whole of Ireland. The very proceedings which the noble Lord reprobated would not have taken place in an enlarged constituency. With respect to the self-acting registration, the latter proposition had never been brought forward. He was surprised to hear the noble Lord argue, or rather déraisonner, with respect to its probable effects. Instead of producing agitation to coerce electors, the result would be the opposite; for it was manifest that when it was optional for a man to register, his political opinions would be from the first made the subject of inquiry on the part of his landlord, and under such circumstances he was made a party man whether he would or not. The noble Marquess concluded by urging their Lordships to agree to the Amendments of the Commons.
The House then divided on Lord Stanley's Motion to insist on the Lords' Amendment:—Content, Present 62; Proxies 53; Total 115: Not Content, Present 56; Proxies 70; Total 126: Majority 11.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKE.

Desart

Buckingham

Glengall

MARQUESSES

Hardwicke

Drogheda

Jersey

Ely

Kinnoull

Exeter

Longford

Salisbury

Lonsdale

EARLS.

Lucan

Abergavenny

Macclesfield

Abingdon

Mansfield

Beauchamp

Malmesbury

Chesterfield

Mountcashell

Cardigan

Nelson

862

Orkney

BARONS.

Orford

Abinger

Powis

Brougham

Romney

Boston

Rosse

Clonbrock

Roden

Colchester

Stanhope

Crofton

Sheffield

De Lisle

Talbot

De Ros

Verulam

Downes

Warwick

Forester

Wilton

Grantley

Winchelsea

Lyndhurst

Rayleigh

VISCOUNTS.

Redesdale

Gage

Sandys

Hill

Skelmersdale

Middleton

Southampton

Strangford

Stanley

Templemore

BISHOP.

Tenterden

Bath and Wells

Wynford

Proxies.

DUKES.

Ranfurly

Athol

Rosslyn

Newcastle

Sinclair

Manchester

Seafield

Marlborough

Sherburne

MARQUESSES.

Tankerville

Ailsa

VISCOUNTS.

Hertford

Beresford

Londonderry

Doneraile

Waterford

Hawarden

EARLS.

Lorton

Aylesford

O'Niel

Beverley

Sidmouth

Buckinghamshire

BISHOPS.

Cathcart

Carlisle

Caledon

Exeter

Crawford

BARONS.

Dartmouth

Bexley

Dunraven

Bagot

Digby

Clinton

Delawarr

De Saumarez

Eldon

Gray

Falmouth

Kilmain

Guildford

Middleton

Harewood

Polworth

Leven

Rodney

Northwick

Sondes

Onslow

Walsingham

Powlett

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

Carlisle

DUKES.

Chichester

Bedford

Clarendon

Buccleuch

Devon

Leinster

Durham

Norfolk

Effingham

MARQUESSES.

Fingall

Anglesey

Gosford

Breadalbane

Granville

Clanricarde

Grey

Donegal

Minto

Lansdowne

Morley

Westminster

St. Germans

Winchester

Scarborough

EARLS.

Strafford

Besborough

Suffolk

Bruce

Waldegrave

Bathurst

Wicklow

863

Uxbridge

Cremorne

VISCOUNTS.

De Tabley

Canning

Dufferin

Ponsonby

Eddisbury

BISHOP.

Elphinstone

Norwich

Erskine

BARONS.

Foley

Ashburton

Milford

Beaumont

Monteagle

Byron

Overstone

Camoys

Portman

Carrington

Say and Sele

Colborne

Wharncliffe

Proxies.

ARCHBISHOP.

VISCOUNTS.

Archbishop of York

Bolingbroke

DUKES.

Falkland

Hamilton

Hardinge

Devonshire

Lismore

Leeds

Mazarene

Somerset

Sidney

Sutherland

BISHOPS.

MARQUESSES.

Hereford

Bristol

Ripon

Camden

St. Asaph

Normanby

Worcester

Northampton

BARONS.

Sligo

Blantyre

EARLS.

Campbell

Charlemont

Cowley

Cork

Carew

Cottenham

Churchill

Craven

Cloncurry

Cornwallis

Dacre

Derby

Denman

Ducie

Godolphin

Errol

Heytesbury

Essex

Howard de Walden

Fitzhardinge

Howden

Gainsborough

Keane

Haddington

Monson

Harrowby

Montfort

Home

Rivers

Howe

Rossmore

Kenmare

Stanley of Alderley

Kingston

Stafford

Meath

Stourton

Oxford

Sudeley

Radnor

Suffield

Ripon

Vaux

Roseberry

Vernon

Sefton

Wodehouse

Shrewsbury

Amendment not insisted on; and the Commons Amendment agreed to.
The EARL of DESARTthen moved that their Lordships should disagree to that Amendment of the Commons which provided for compulsory registration. He could not consent to expose the voters to the persecution to which they would be sure to he subjected if so pernicious a system were adopted. The Commons had in this matter made a concession to popular clamour, but they had not acted prudently in so doing. Concession never disarmed agitation. It rather infused fresh vigour into it.
LORD STANLEY: If I could bring myself to believe that there is any—the least—likelihood that the result of another division would be that a different conclusion from that which has been just adopted would be arrived at, I most assuredly would not hesitate to advise my noble Friend to divide the House on his Amendment, for I entirely concur with him that the principle of a compulsory registration is liable to many and most serious objections. I believe that it will be found to be most dangerous and mischievous in that country where it is now about to be introduced for the first time—in Ireland; and I am certain that it would be attended with prejudicial results even in England. With these feelings I should not scruple to advise my noble Friend to press his Motion to a division, if I could bring myself to hope that the result of a division would be favourable to our common views; but, so far as I am able to collect the opinions of noble Lords present, there does not appear to be any probability that the numbers would not be pretty much the same as on the last division. On the last division, a majority of your Lordships here present in favour of insisting on your own Amendments was overborne and outbalanced by a majority of proxies, and as, on the principle that litera scripta manet, that same majority still remains to carry the Government to victory—a majority, let me observe, that cannot be influenced by any arguments, however powerful, by any appeals, however eloquent—I feel it would be only a waste of your Lordships' time if we were to proceed to a second division. If the division were to depend on the votes of noble Lords now present, we should have no apprehension of the result; but as the Government will no doubt have again recourse to the proxy system—a system most convenient in itself, and which the present Government has found more convenient than any preceding Government—I must suggest to my noble Friend that it would be a wanton waste of time to divide again. With respect to certain observations which I made some time ago on another division similarly obtained, I must take leave to remak that it is an error to represent me as having stated that it would be desirable to deprive your Lordships of the privilege of voting by proxy. I never said so; but this I did say, and I repeat it, that there never was any Government which has been so much indebted for their majorities as the present Government to

865
that means of voting; and I do not hesitate to assert that, however convenient or necessary it may on some occasions be, it is not a satisfactory mode of proceeding for a Government systematically to pursue, that of reversing the opinions of present majorities by having recourse to the votes of noble Lords who have no opportunity of taking part in the debates.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEobserved that he would not say one word to influence the noble Lord from whatever course might appear most desirable to himself. The noble Lord was at liberty to take whatever course he pleased with respect to dividing; but if they went to a division, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) would most assuredly call for proxies, for nothing could be fairer or more legitimate. The proxy system might or might not be convenient; but of this he was persuaded, that there was no noble Lord in their Lordships' House who would more willingly have recourse to it, if it suited his own purpose, or had more frequently resorted to it, than the noble Lord opposite.
LORD STANLEY: I beg to say I never call proxies when I am in a minority of the Lords present.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEcontinued to observe that if there had ever been a question in which it was fair and legitimate to use proxies, that question was the present one. It was a question which had been before the public for three months, which had been agitated most zealously in that and the other House, and in respect of which it was perfectly well known what the Amendments intended to be proposed would be. If the noble Lord thought that he would gain a single vote by dividing, he would of course divide.
The EARL of DESARTsaid, that he should accede to the recommendation of his noble Friend, and consent to withdraw the Motion. It was with deep regret that he had to assent to the Amendments of the other House. He greatly regretted that their Lordships had ever given their assent to the principle of the Bill, believing, as he did, that the measure was uncalled for and injurious.
House adjourned till To-morrow.